Thursday, April 22, 2010

New EKOS Poll: 4.6-pt Conservative Lead

EKOS's weekly poll indicates that while the recent scandals and issues have weakened the Conservatives, it hasn't dragged them down.EKOS points out that in the wake of the Guergis scandal, the Liberals and Conservatives were polling at a tie. But over the last week, things have normalized and the Liberals have falled back 1.9 points to 27.1%. The Conservatives are up 0.3 points to 31.7%. That is still way too low for the governing party.

The New Democrats are down 0.1 points to 16.3%, while the Greens are up 1.5 to 12.6% and the Bloc Québécois is up 0.7 points to 9.5%. "Other" is down 0.6 points to 2.7%.

In Ontario, the Liberals and Conservatives have traded about two points, as the Liberals are down to 34.6% and the Conservatives are up to 33.1%. The Liberals can be happy with the lead, but they need to be doing better. The NDP is stable, with 17.0%. The Liberals lead in Toronto with 40.8%, followed by the Conservatives at 30.6%. In Ottawa, the Tories lead with 41.7%, while the NDP seems to have taken their biggest hit (11 points) here.

In Quebec, the Bloc is up three points to 38.4%, dominating over the Liberals who are at 22.7% (down one). The Conservatives have fallen away steeply, down two points to 13.8%. The Greens are at 12.0%. In Montreal, the Bloc leads the Liberals 32.4% to 21.8%.

In British Columbia, the Conservatives are moving back into a comfortable lead, up two points to 34.7%. The NDP is up four to 28.1% and the Liberals are down four to a troublesome 21.6%. The Greens are steady at 13.3%. The Conservatives lead in Vancouver with 36.2%.

Elsewhere, the Tories lead in Atlantic Canada with 34.7% and the Prairies with 43.8%. The NDP is down six points there to 18.2%. In Alberta, the Conservatives are well ahead with 56.4%.

The Conservatives would win 66 seats in the West, 39 in Ontario, 4 in Quebec, and 12 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 121 seats. That dismal result in Quebec hurts.

The Liberals win 15 seats in the West, 49 in Ontario, 17 in Quebec, and 17 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 98.

The Bloc wins 54 seats, matching their all-time best. They really just have no competition.

The NDP wins 14 seats in the West, 18 in Ontario, and 3 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 35. Coupled with the Liberals, they outnumber the Tories 133 to 121.

The big thing to take away from this poll is that all of the brouhaha in Ottawa is not having much of an effect, other than to disillusion enough Canadians to make either one of the two major parties the choice of less than 1/3rd of Canadians. A governing mandate built on such a low level of support would be difficult to justify.

As far as a mandate to govern goes: whoever wins, wins. It's a dumb system, but if the party with the most seats doesn't govern, nobody else will. In the '90s, the BC NDP and the Parti quebecois both governed for five years despite coming second in the popular vote.

Frustrating how at 12.6% the Greens still don't get a seat. Of course, if the mess with the old PC party going down to 2 seats despite nearly 20% support couldn't force electoral reform I don't know what will.

"Frank Graves of Ekos Research, in agreement with the analysis, has told the Grits that the wedge politics of the Conservatives provide them with an opportunity to stake out a stark alternative. Stop worrying about the West, he’s told them. No need to fear polarizing the debate. It’s what worked for Mr. Chretien against Preston Manning and Stockwell Day.

In his advice, Mr. Graves could hardly have been more blunt. “I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy. If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.”

That says it all.

Mr. Ignatieff has to stand up immediately and distance himself and the Liberal party from this pro-separation , mean spirited approach presented by Mr. Graves.

Taxpayer money supports Mr. Graves through the weekly CBC polls.

Alberta and BC (and Sask) are ideally set up to go it alone as a North American Norway. No need for "the Grumpy old men" to join the States and vote for Pallin.

It is difficult to argue that the EKOS weekly polls are not incredible biased after you see the "hidden agenda" of the Liberal brain thrust behind them.

These are interesting numbers from the Green point of view in three respects.

The first is that Green support really seems to have moved up a notch from a month ago when it was just over 10%. It now seems to be in the mid-11 range. One poll is noise; four polls is signal.

For the Tories or Grits, this would be noise in the range of their swings. For the Green Party it's very important because at this level the number of ridings winning over 10% of the vote jumps drastically. That in turn means that 60% of eligible election expenses are reimbursed, which dramatically changes campaign fundraising and planning. (The Tories may huff and puff about the per-vote subsidies but they won't let go of the campaign reimbursement cash cow any time soon.)

For the second point, that 10% threshold would be meaningless if Greens were polling 40% in some regions and 2% in others. However, this week's figures are unprecedented in my personal poll-watching, and quite possibly in Canadian polling history. The spread of Green support across all regions varies from 12% in Quebec to 13.2% in BC, or by 1.2%, a fraction of the margin of error. Put differently, that's 10% relative to the amount of Green support. The Green Party is truly national. To put this into context, the Tory, Grit, Dipper and Bloc ranges of support as a percentage of national support are 134%, 66%, 112% and 404% respectively. They are in a different world.

The third point is that this doesn't help the Green Party under our antiquated first-past-the-post system, apart from maximizing campaign reimbursements. Greens may have a third more supporters than the Bloc, but Éric forecasts 54 Bloc seats versus 0 Greens. I believe the last number is a bit low, but not by much.

Greens would really prefer to see high numbers in regions where multiple parties vie for the lead in exchange for support in regions dominated by a single party (Alberta is the poster child for the latter). BC is a clear example of a multi-way bunfight. Ontario is a two-way tussle but the Dippers have won seats with Green-like levels of support province-wide. I probably haven't given Atlantic Canada enough attention in past, where three parties battle for the regional lead. (This may break down at the provincial level and I invite deeper commentary.)

So, this is a good news-bad news poll for the Greens, but overall it's unquestionably good news. The numbers that count are those certified by Elections Canada, but the Green Party is certain to see unprecedented popular support in the next election.

Strategic Counsel used to do polls whereby they would show the national numbers etc and then show the national numbers without Quebec because of the Bloc not being in any province. I'd love to see EKOS do that-I would assume in the other 233 seats the conservatives are owning a majority of those. I know come election-the Bloc are there but it would be very interesting to see the national numbers without them.

Éric: Though, I imagine the Other parties would split too much and not have enough individual support to elect anyone.

Proportional representation systems usually have some minimum threshold for winning any seats. It's unlikely that any Canadian fringe party today would meet that threshold. (Refutations based on solid numbers are invited.)

Which means that after the election, the non-confidence vote (if required) and the formation of a Grit minority government, the unredacted documents will be delivered to Committee.

If the documents are really that toxic, Harper's optimal strategy is probably to get them out ASAP. That way he has at least some control over subsequent events.

Hypothetically, even if documented evidence of war crimes by the PM and cabinet were discovered, all parties would still hesitate to haul a sitting Prime Minister before the bench. If nothing happens for long enough, the moment and the momentum are lost. There will be political fallout, but the probability of legal fallout decreases. If the Grits open Pandora's Box post-election, the Tories' position is riskier.

If the redacted text shows the government's actions to be as pure as the driven snow, there's no need to hurry. But why then would Harper choose this hill to die on?

I think one of the problems with this poll is that even after all the Guergis allegations, the LPOC still falls. 2.2 percent while the Torie hold their own. While not good news for either the CPC or LPOC this poll is bad news for Iggy who just can't get any traction and is barely polling above Dion levels.

If it comes down to it I don't think Harper will be afraid to go to an election over the detainee issue. Again I think an election on the detainee issue would possibly produce a majority for either of the major parties. Were I, Harper though I'd take the odds which I'd put at 60/40 for the CPC in light of these poll numbers. No doubt both the LPOC and the CPC have done extensive private polling around d the entire subject and have a much better idea of the outcomes than we do.

"What exactly do you think is in them that is so incriminating to Harper"

Nothing.

The documents most likely show gross negligence on the part of the Liberals when they signed the original detainee transfer agreement with the Afghans (although a war crimes charge requires intent/malice so they're in the clear legally speaking.)

So why is Harper protecting the Liberals ?

Because even though the buck stops with the Liberals (ministerial accountability) Harper knows that it would damage fmr CDS Hillier, the military in general, and destroy the Afghan mission.

In the end, Harper is acting on principle and rising above petty political concerns to protect Canada's foriegn policy goals and the prestige of the military.

For that reason Harper will never willingly turn over the documents, even if it means an election.

Thanks Eric!! Quebec is indeed a part of Canada and I hope it stays that way. It is a place I've visited only once and would like to see much more of. I'm unilingual though and am afraid of the reaction I'd get in Quebec. Quebec city is one place I do hope to get to.

Just for fun, if we had a half-PR, half FPTP parliament (and a German-style threshold of 5% or three FPTP seats) using Eric's projections we would have:

CPC: 110LIB: 92NDP: 44BLQ: 42GRN: 20

This isn't exactly the German system because they take away some of your PR seats if you win a lot of FPTP seats. But still, we would have a very similar dynamic to Germany: two major parties and three minor ones, with coalitions of two or even three parties usually needed.

In the end, Harper is acting on principle and rising above petty political concerns to protect Canada's foriegn policy goals and the prestige of the military.

Typical spin 49 ? The truth being that there is stuff in those documents that very directly nails the Harper Govt for ignoring if not encouraging detainee abuse. We've had enough testimony under oath to know that the stuff is there. Plus the UK trial is bringing out that not only did we do it but they did too and apparently NATO as well.

This follows a warning by pollster Allan Gregg. His research suggests the Liberals have lost ground because they no longer are seen to represent values that resonate with the broad sweep of Canadians.

If it had just been Graves I would probably agree. This changes the scene and I remember seeing very recently somebody from AR essentially saying the same thing. That the Liberals have sort of lost their way seems fairly obvious though.

While no one wins like a winner, I don't think Harper has actually been a great leader for the Conservatives. He didn't have anyone of high calibre against him in the leadership contest, however.

But had a leader like McKay, who is more personally likable and has less of a right-wing past (i.e., Reform and the firewall), been leading the party it is likely they would have formed a majority in 2008.

All polls have shown that Canadians don't like Harper very much, with perjorative terms always coming up when asked to describe the PM. He's also seen as competent, which is why he has managed to win minorities. A new leader that can be seen as competent and likable and more of a Progressive Conservative should be able to win a majority against a weak Liberal opposition.

So, basically Shadow believes in a Conservative Party which resembles the Teabaggers down south.

They move themselves as right-wing as remotely possible, as anti-Obama as remotely possible, and refuse any sort of compromise with Democrats, even though doing so diminishes their chance at getting elected. After all, any compromise with the Democrats or Obama turns away from True Conservative (TM) values that Reagan championed.

As for Canadians, it's clear that Canadians are "leaving" the Alliance/Reform past. That's why even with ineffectual Liberal leaders and a shameless NDP leader, they still cannot reach a majority.

Will this lead to Conservatives slowly surrounding Stephen while clutching daggers?

I know predictions are only that but, 308.com always seems to have very generous seat totals for the Liberals out West. Against a divided Conservative party and a demoralized NDP the Grits won 27 seats in 1993, 15 seats in 1997, 14 seats in 2000, 14 seats 2004, 14 seats 2006 and, 7 seats in 2008.

This last poll showed the Grits .8% higher than their 2008 popular vote results yet in the prediction they gain 8 seats out West! What is going on?

For what it is worth I plugged the numbers into the UBC matrix and came up with 10 seats for the Grits out West. I think this is a much more acurate result.

With respect, MacKay has no chance: Charest's chances are practically nil and MacKay's are less than that...the Orchard thing was really the kiss of death for Peter -- royally pissed off the Red Tories and alienated the Alliance base by MacKay striking a deal with Orchard in the first place.

The Alliance base will pick the next CPC leader -- and it won't be MacKay, Charest or for that matter, Prentice or Bernier.

John Baird would be another good leader for the Conservatives though Jim Prentice would be my pick.

It's probably unlikely either of them would become leaders though because of the social conservatives in the west who dominate the Conservative Party. A lot of the Reformers I doubt are that open to Baird's sexuality and a red tory who supports sam-sex marriage and is pro-choice like Prentice wouldn't go over well either.

I'm disappointed that my man Prentice didn't do well in that leadership poll, but think it has something to do with his lower profile in the East.

The CPC choose their leaders in such a way, as to give more weight to ridings where they don't do well in elections.

I did a rough calculation one time for my Timmins-James Bay vote compared to one in Calgary, and came up with it being something like 4 or 5 times more valuable.

If Prentice can reach out in weaker ridings, and maintain support in the West, then he should still be able to pull it out.

If and when that happens, I would think it would be much easier for him to gain the fabled majority, and put an end to all of theese "Liberal light" policies we've had to endure, in this minority situation.

Mr. Ignatieff you've recently tacked left and attempted to start a culture war, pitting some Canadians against other Canadians over the maternal health and the gun registry issue. Did Mr. Graves have anything to do with developing this devisive new strategy ??

Hopefully this comes up with my new username (just used my real name as I do on all forums). The system just grabbed part of my email address before.

As to pollster bias - there are many ways for it to occur, but I wouldn't put too much strength on it. I suspect the pro-CPC ones are putting more weight on older voters while EKOS and the like put it more to an even weighting (weighted by population in each age group, rather than likelihood to vote). Given my Green bias I'd like to believe the EKOS ones but suspect the AR ones are more accurate as to what will happen on election day (whenever it may be).

Reeeeeeaaaaad!!I did not say I wanted polls done without Quebec I said Strategic Counsel used to do a comparison on their polls because the Bloc always ends up around 10% of the "national" vote when they only run in one province. So it skewed the numbers. And because the Bloc only runs in one-a COMPARISON in each poll would be nice!!!!!!

I'm still not sure of why that matters. If a party is at 30% with Quebec included and at 33% without Quebec included, it doesn't change the fact that the party is at 30% in Canada and that is the number that counts in an election.

It doesn't skew the numbers at all. The Bloc is at 10% nationally because 10% of Canadians support them.

Eric thanks for doing that-pulling Quebec just for a comparison. Like I said earlier post Strategic Counsel used to do that-because the Bloc poll at 10% of the "national" vote it skews. Good job eric!!

When the 10% of Canadians supporting the Bloc are all in one province-it is different to me. No other party has that distinction.The 10% say for the Green would not reslut in 45-50 seats for the Green like the Bloc are going to get out of their 10%.

Alberta is not the only province that the Conservatives run in. The Bloc run in one province only and their 10% national vote translates into 45-50 seats, the NDP run in all provinces and get in the teens(15-19%) and get 35 seats. Maybe skew is the wrong word-by taking Quebec out it shows the strength of the other parties across the country in general. Maybe you should ask Donolo-he saw fit to do the comparison and I found it interesting. Because the conservatives poll 50-60% in Alberta does not mean they get anymore seats-just what's in Alberta.But once it is assimilated with the rest of the provinces you get the overall pic-but you can't do that with the Bloc-they rank at 10% nationally but win 40+seats.Sorry if I upset the applecart guys. It does not translate into anything it gives you the pic in the ROC and I find it interesting-nothing more-nothing less.

EKOS had the Conservatives with a double-digit lead only a few months ago, and the current highest result for the Tories in the projection is an EKOS poll.

I won't be removing them from the projection or changing the weight I give them.

CROP is the pollster of the federalist La Presse. IR is the pollster of the National Post. The only thing that changes my view of each pollster is how close they were to the correct result in 2008, and that will continue to be my only method of judging each pollster until we have more electoral results to compare.

How much time would you make for a pollster from the Manning Institute? There will be more refusals from the Liberal/NDP left wing in for that poll. That would skew the results the way the Manning Institute would hope for.

Now that Graves is outted not only as Liberal pollster but a Liberal pollster with radical views that he is promoting on Cultural wars and western alienation you have to see that his sampling has become tainted. There will be more people who will who will not participate in his polls. What do even 10-20 focused hang ups do to a sample of 2000?

In regards to your overall accuracy judgments as to which pollsters accurately predict the election outcomes.

I seem to recall that there were several pollsters that had drastic swings to the CPC in the last election in their last poll before the election. Was that a electoral change the last few days OR just releasing accurate polls?

I do not have the data to back this up.

Would you be able to post the last 4 polls leading into the last election from the various pollsters.

My theory (might be true because my tin foil hat prevents the mind control) is that pollsters try to influence the election by working the poll results. They can do that until the actual the election where they have to get close results or lose credibility and future income.

Put yourself in Graves position. Hypothetically you find that Dion is polling 15% - behind the NDP. As a life long Liberal this publishing this might cause a stampede where the Liberals are wiped out and replaced by the NDP. Do you release the poll and take a chance it is an outlier? Or would it influence public opinion to make it factual in the next poll.

This theory seems to be gaining some credence in the MSM as there is lip service being paid to lets limit the polls and listen to the policy. This is done when the polls are beating up on the party whose policies you support.

Pollsters need to have the appearance of unbiased neutrality. Graves will never get his back.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.